NCJ Number
113239
Journal
Judicature Volume: 72 Issue: 1 Dated: (June-July 1988) Pages: 23-28
Date Published
1988
Length
6 pages
Annotation
The general public, litigants, and lawyers have varying views of court performance, but the promulgation of objective performance standards and measurement of court compliance with them, together with the public dissemination of such information, should yield a more accurate and mature view of the courts among their constituencies.
Abstract
Although the general public tends to view the courts as too lenient with criminals and an obstruction to effective police work, data indicate otherwise. The public must be educated about the court's mission and the principles upon which it is based, so public perceptions of court performance may be grounded in accurate data and constitutional principles. Litigants tend to measure court and judicial performance by the fairness of the process more than the case outcome. Attorneys measure judicial performance by such criteria as judicial demeanor, management skills, and legal ability. Lawyers generally give judges high marks. Objective criteria for measuring court performance typically relate to the speed with which cases are processed. The National Center for State Courts is embarking on a major, multiyear Large Court Capacity project to develop detailed performance standards for large general jurisdiction trial courts. These standards will encompass measures of justice as well as efficiency. 1 table, 43 footnotes.